Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Over and above the systematisation of the crepis it is possible to make some
general observations and note odd details which demonstrate the concern given
by Greek builders to stone foundations in monumental ashlar construction.
Only in very exceptional circumstances was a rat of continuous masonry pro-
vided as foundations—always the norm was to provide individual foundations
for each individual load bearing element of the structure (at times even for each
column); and no foundation masonry was wasted beneath non load bearing space.
h e type of stone employed for foundations was generally dif erent from that used
for upstanding masonry on rational grounds of both aspect and structure: the stone
was invisible and it was not exposed to weathering. Very frequently old
disjecta
membra
including column drums were reused. Structurally foundations were always
assembled in order; material was never dumped down into a trench from above.
Where foundations were carried down to a considerable depth an orderly develop-
ment from below to above is manifested. At the bottom smaller odd fragments of
all sorts are compacted together then with height the blocks become larger, more
regular and are set with care, eventually even cramped (Martin, pp. 308-22). Finally
it may be noted that wherever a building contract survives it demonstrates that
foundations were not let to the “know-how” of the builders but are treated in the
specii cations with exactly the same precision as the upstanding masonry.
h ere were no radical new developments in stone foundations for monumental
building to be associated with Roman as distinct from Greek building. h ere was,
indeed, much technical concern with foundations in Roman construction, but this
was in engineering work—roads, bridges, harbours, etc., and thus essentially outside
the scope of the present study. Monumental building construction in Roman Con-
crete was pervasive and it employed concrete foundations. Monumental building
in ashlar stone was for the most part in commemorative building, temples, tombs
and in this connection there was a development which impinged on foundation
practice. As is well known the Roman temple assumed an attitude other than that
of a Greek temple emerging from the ground on its stepped crepis. h e Roman
temple sought dominance lit ed up prominently to axial view on a podium. h us
the podium in construction as in design was the counterpart of the crepis. It is
doubtful that any specii c study of the construction of the Roman podium has been
made and clearly this varies according to size and other factors. However, in principle,
as with the Greek crepis, the main load bearing elements of the upstanding structure
were treated independently, and carried down by independent stone foundations
within the podium (cf exposed foundation masonry of the republican Temple of
Cori, Robertson, i g 93). h e die walls of the podium thus act as retaining walls for
compacted i lling between the individual masonry foundations of the load bearing
elements—which sometimes can be concrete (Adam, pp. 115-16; i gs 241, 242).
Classical
Greek
stone
founda-
tions—
h e crepis
225
226
